Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1974

Consideration of Draft Report on Staffing of Secretariat.

Chairman

Item 2 is the consideration of a Draft Report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the Staffing of the Secretariat. Every Member has a copy of the Draft Report and it is now open for discussion.

Following is the draft report:

The Joint Committee wishes to report to both Houses of the Oireachtas that because of its inability to procure an adequate complement of staff and expert assistance from Public Departments, it is unable to comply with its terms of reference.

The Joint Committee wishes to draw the attention of both Houses to the fact that this is giving rise to a situation in which a considerable volume of Community legislation of fundamental importance to the welfare of the people of Ireland is not being brought to the attention of the Oireachtas at any stage and in which it is not possible for either House to exercise the power of annulling regulations conferred on them by section 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973.

Furthermore, the Irish delegates to the European Parliament cannot be provided with an adequate briefing service on the scale necessary to enable them to carry out their duties in that Parliament.

The Joint Committee also feels that it should direct the attention of both Houses particularly to the fact that, as the setting up of the Joint Committee represented an important step in the inauguration of a system of parliamentary committee procedure in Oireachtas Eireann, the present situation has very serious implications for the prospects of the successful establishment of any such system.

Chairman

The Minister for the Public Service was with us yesterday in private session. We discussed very fully with him the whole situation with regard to staff. Members of the Committee gave their views about the situation and in particular the Members of the Committee who are also delegates to the European Parliament spoke about their situation and the difficulties they are encountering.

The Minister made a number of points, which I need not go into now. As a result of our discussion we decided we should resume in public session today to have a general review of the situation as it now presents itself to us in the light of what the Minister said. It is a matter for the Committee this morning to decide whether we will proceed with a report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the situation in which we find ourselves. I know Members have views about that and I will be glad to hear them in a moment.

One thing which emerged from our discussion with the Minister was in regard to the attendance of officials from Government Departments at our meetings in a briefing capacity. We went to some length to assure him that in so far as we desire the attendance of officials from the different Departments to help us in our work, attendance would be only at sub-committee meetings. We would only require assistance from these officials at a technical level and we would be scrupulous not to intrude on any policy areas. We would only ask for technical non-policy type briefings from the officials. The Minister accepted that assurance and undertook to look into the situation in the light of that assurance and of his general understanding of our need of such an attendance, as we had outlined it to him. We have now to await further developments in that regard. We are not yet in a position to have, as a matter of routine, the attendance of officials from Government Departments.

The Minister indicated he thought it would be desirable that we should call on more Ministers than we have been doing to attend and to come before us to talk about the relevant aspects of the work of their Departments which are of interest to us. This is also something about which we might talk further. In general the situation is that the matter of our being able to call upon officials from the public Departments is still unresolved and under review. Does any Member wish to make any comment?

Senator E. Ryan

Was any indication given of when a decision would be taken on that point?

Chairman

No.

Senator Lenihan

I regard this point as basic to the whole working of this committee. Very briefly, we are a European Committee and committees within Europe operate on the basis that top officials from the Commission are always available to Parliamentary Committees discussing their particular area of work. They sit opposite the Parliamentarians; the Parliamentarians and top officials are in on policy-making in any and every area associated with European legislation. It is time that our Administration got this basic fact into their heads—this notion of the Administration pursuing its way, the Parliamentary representatives pursuing their way and only coming to a conflict after Government processing in the Dáil is totally alien to the whole conception of European administration. This is a very basic and fundamental fact which our Administration, irrespective of Government or political party, will have to accept and see as a reality. There is no point in any Minister coming in here and saying that he or his colleague will be available. That is not what we are about; we are about getting in on the ground floor, with those officials, in each particular area relative to their sphere of administration. Basically that is what we should be at here. That is fundamental to the whole conception of this committee.

It is excellent that we are getting extra staff and so on, but this is not real as long as we are not in on the ground floor with administrative representatives here. This is fundamental to the whole function.

Senator Robinson

Could I ask whether or not this draft report will be included in the record of today's proceedings? Since we are now discussing it I want to know whether the text of this draft report will be available to anybody reading the record of today's discussions?

Chairman

I think it would be better to include it.

Senator Robinson

I am grateful for that because I think it is necessary that the public be made aware of the situation in which this committee finds itself. We were constituted on the 27th July, 1973. Therefore, we are almost a year in existence. Throughout that year we have had a severe staffing problem and one of non-co-operation from the various Departments whose assistance we need. I think this should be made very clear, because what we are talking about today is the cost of democracy: whether it is possible for the Oireachtas to evolve a committee system which will allow us to cope with the European dimension, to cope with the draft regulations and directives coming from Brussels which have such a dramatic and substantial effect on Irish life. We have to realise that the Oireachtas must be able to adapt to the fact that a good deal of law-making is taking place outside this island which has a substantial impact on the lives of citizens within this island.

I would agree very much with Senator Lenihan that this calls for an entirely new relationship between this committee and the public service; that we are entitled to call for and expect very good co-operation from the relevant Departments. What we want is attendance and assistance by officials at the sub-committee meetings of the committee—which have not reported—and which are for the purpose of helping the committee to form a view on the particular draft Community proposals. This is the sort of co-operation we have not been able to get on an overall basis. Nor have we had any assurance from the Government that there will be a decision to this effect which will ensure co-operation by all the Departments. I believe that this committee should insist upon a Cabinet decision—that the officials of the various Departments will come, at the request of the Oireachtas Joint Committee, to sub-committee sessions on particular subjects.

That is the first thing we must insist on.

Secondly, we must realise that unless we have a full complement of staff providing a back-up service for the four sub-committees we have established to examine particular areas those sub-committees cannot function adequately. Our workload was assessed by a senior official of the Department of the Public Service over a period of some months in the early part of this year. That official reported to the Minister. Before doing so he gave us an indication of the content of his report and of his recommendation for staffing. His recommendation differed from the decision which the Minister has now put before us. The Minister has cut down substantially on what his official, Dr. Whelan, recommended.

I do not believe that the Joint Committee should accept this. We should not accept both this downgrading of the number of staff to be made available to us and of the seniority of such back-up staff. The Minister is not treating this committee seriously. The issue we are talking about is the cost of democracy, and how serious we are about achieving democratic control over European decision-making.

Members of the Committee who visited Brussels were impressed at the back-up services provided for the European Parliamentary Committees. Senator Lenihan has referred to this. Yet we often hear complaints about democracy in Europe today. What hypocrites we are if we complain about the lack of democracy at the European level but refuse to supply the minimal staff necessary to make this a good working committee with sub-committees to cope with the substantial workload in tackling the important problems and considering the effect of Community draft proposals on the lives, jobs and environment within this country!

We cannot achieve our objective as Parliamentarians who already have a heavy work schedule elsewhere unless we have both the back-up of officials of our own and also the co-operation, at a much more fundamental level, of experts and officials from the various Departments. Knowing that this draft report will be on the record of the day's proceedings I should like to support strongly the tenor of this report and the way in which it highlights our position. I should like us to report along these lines to both Houses of the Oireachtas, explaining that we cannot do the job we were set up to do unless we get a reasonable complement of staff. We are not satisfied with the position of the staff given by the Minister for the Public Service, which was less than one-half of what his own officials assessed as being the appropriate staff.

There should be a debate on the floor of each House on the issue of how seriously we have realised the impact of membership of the EEC and how determined we are to create structures within the Oireachtas to discharge our basic responsibilities as representatives of the people by examining this draft legislation from the Irish point of view. I do not want to see us continuing to complain in private sessions which have not been very productive or have not resulted in decisions. I am in favour of going before both Houses and having a debate in the Dáil and Seanad before the Houses rise for the summer.

Senator E. Ryan

The draft report mentions one very important aspect of this when it says:

The Joint Committee also feels that it should direct the attention of both Houses particularly to the fact that, as the setting up of the Joint Committee represented an important step in the inauguration of a system of parliamentary committee procedure in Oireachtas Éireann, the present situation has very serious implications for the prospects of the successful establishment of any such system.

Apart from our own problem here this committee do not feel able to do the job they have been given to do without the additional staff and help from the Government Departments. It should be realised that this may be a testing point for the whole future of the committee system which all parties are in favour of and which it was hoped to have introduced in a number of spheres within the next year or so. This committee system cannot work unless there are adequate back-up services and a good staff and, most of all, a proper attitude on the part of the Government and the Departments in regard to the committee system. If we fail to get the staff and the co-operation we are asking for there is no doubt that the whole committee system will never get off the ground in the Oireachtas. Consequently, it would not be over-dramatising the position to say that this is the testing point for the whole idea of a committee system. It might be wrong to say there was conscious reluctance on the part of the Civil Service to give us the help we need. Whether it is conscious or subconscious there is a feeling that the committee should not be given too much power and should not be allowed to take over too much of the administration or actual decision-making. There is positive reluctance to giving the help we need and to giving more power to committees of this kind. Unless we can ensure that that approach is changed in a very positive way not only will this committee fail to do their job but the whole committee system will never get off the ground. From that point of view, as well as from the point of view of our own problem, we must press very strongly for a new approach. There has to be a widespread change of attitude.

Deputy B. Desmond

I see no objection to incorporating the draft report into the proceedings of today's meeting. I do not see much point in presenting it to Parliament as yet. The nature of the discussions is something between this committee and the Minister for the Public Service. I doubt very much whether a discussion in Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann would be more productive than the discussion we had yesterday with the Minister. It must be appreciated that, whether we like it or not, as Parliamentarians we have another responsibility and that is a responsibility not to waste taxpayer's money. There is a Government decision to allocate to this committee a principal officer, an assistant principal officer, two higher executive officers, two new clerical assistants in the Oireachtas Library and one clerk-typist, that is a total staff of seven—which is available to the Committee. The estimated cost of that staff must be about £15,000 per annum. We are not satisfied. I am not satisfied but I am interested in the limits of public expenditure. I hold the view that is possible for us to reach finality with the Minister in relation to the staffing of this committee. I do not think it would require massive funding. Perhaps we could get two more higher executive officers and one other principal officer or assistant principal officer. We would then be on the road to setting up the structures of this committee.

The Minister has a point when he says: "I have given you a principal officer, an assistant principal officer, two higher executive officers, two clerical assistants in the Library and a clerk-typist. With that structure set yourselves up. Get on your way and within six or nine months I will review the effectiveness of the work being done by this staff on behalf of the four sub-committees". On the staffing point we are not that far apart. I found yesterday afternoon an anxiety on the part of the Minister to meet the wishes of this Committee in so far as he can. I do not think there is a great divergence between the staff allocated to us and the report of Dr. Whelan. Dr. Whelan did not recommend a massive bureaucracy. I do not think there is any need for a massive bureaucracy. There is a dire need for committees of this nature. We have got to work towards this rather than demanding the bureaucracy and then allocating it some work to do.

We must have a policy decision and an appreciation of policy here. There are former Ministers on this Committee. They know the difference between civil servants coming before this Committee and talking about matters which are the responsibility of Government in terms of policy formation. It is out of the question that we should have a public servant from a responsible Government Department coming here and giving confidential information which is the subject of ministerial decision. It is not possible unless you want another form of democracy.

With due respect to the rather questionable bureaucracy of the European Parliament, I do not want to see brought over to Ireland the kind of nonsense and alleged consultations which go on within the European Parliament structures because they are not democratic

The offer of the Minister in relation to the civil servants we are going to get is clear cut. The public servant will convince the Government, in relation to explanatory data, of the factual material. He will fully brief this committee. He will not be responsible to us. In the first instance, he is responsible to the political head of his Department, the Minister. This is a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Our function is not to form policy. It is to examine regulations and instruments and see to what extent they affect the best interests of the Irish people. We are a watchdog committee rather than a formation committee.

I congratulate the Chairman on the work he has done so far in getting the Committee off the ground. There is sufficient rapport between the Chairman and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, to enable an effective staffing system to be set up without going through a big hoo-ha in either House of the Oireachtas.

Chairman

It might not be any harm for me to say to the Members of the Committee who, because of their other parliamentary duties, were unable to be with us yesterday, that the Minister's attitude was very encouraging. He indicated quite clearly that he, as a Minister, was very much in favour of this Committee succeeding. He was anxious to place any possible assistance in our way. If there were restraints, they arose out of his duty to keep public expenditure under control. During the private session with the Minister we were convinced of his wish that the Committee should be successful in carrying out the duties assigned to it by the Oireachtas. It is important that we keep in mind at this stage, along whatever lines the work of the Committee may evolve, that we are only seeking factual, technical and explanatory assistance from public servants.

Senator Lenihan

I want to emphasise that we are not trying to intrude into the area of public policy. We want the particular civil servant relevant to the subject we are discussing to be present at our discussions. There is no point in our establishing a bureaucracy of our own and working in isolation from the public service. We can fight for extra staff for the Secretariat. This is excellent. I would fear if this Committee attached to itself a growing bureaucracy and worked in isolation from the public service, particularly that part of the public service dealing with directives and regulations from the European bodies. It is fundamental to the operation of this Committee that the particular members of the public service appropriate to our discussions should be with us. As some of our Members are aware, top European officials—highly paid people in charge of administration—sit around the table with parliamentarians and exchange views freely. Surely without intruding into policy areas we can have a similar discussion with our top civil servants?

Chairman

I think we should leave that matter for now. The Minister fully understands the wishes of the Committee in this regard. We made what we wanted quite clear and gave assurances about policy areas. For the moment we must leave this with him and see what emerges. Members of this Committee know our staffing situation. We have a Clerk and an Assistant Clerk assigned to us. The Minister now proposes to make available, on a secondment basis from the Civil Service, two Higher Executive Officers. His final words yesterday were that if we submitted further information about our estimate of the schedule of work of the subcommittees he would immediately and as an on-going matter—not after the lapse of a period—consider whether he could make extra staff available in addition to the two Higher Executive Officers already sanctioned.

Deputy B. Desmond

One of the priorities we should try to decide is in what critical areas of examination do we require the two extra staff to be allocated? The Minister is anxious to co-operate and make staff available. There are four sub-committees of this main committee. In two particular areas, the Agricultural Sub-Committee and the Economic and Social Sub-Committee we should try to get two specialist staff at Higher Executive Officer level from the public service. It would be preferable if they were specialists in both fields. They would work on the regulations and instruments in these two areas.

Later on we could get a generalist to deal with general regulations, general instruments, for the other sub-committee but, as of now, the two critical areas are agriculture and the economic and social field—two vitally important sub-committees in that area. I would hope that we would convey to the Minister that the two people brought from the public service should be experts in these fields, to sift through the mass of regulations and drafts, first of all, in agriculture and then in the economic and social field. That, I think, would be setting up the structure.

Deputy McDonald

I should like to see a greater put-through of the reports and a weeding out of the ones which do not directly affect our economy. I think it would be helpful to have somebody read through them and label those of no immediate interest to this country. In that way we would be able to get through 90 per cent of the reports that are issued.

On the agricultural question, in relation to Deputy Desmond's suggestion, I do not think it would be possible to get somebody who could deal with the lot because cereals account for an enormous number of regulations. Every week we get regulations and orders of various kinds connected in one way or another with cereals. It would be difficult to get a man who would be really tops on cereals and who could, perhaps, deal with general agricultural questions as well. If we look for an expert to deal with both, I think we will find ourselves in some trouble. It would be better to have somebody dealing with agriculture and I am sure that whoever is assigned to it will be able to carry on and perhaps ease the burden of the committee considerably.

Senator Lenihan

I think it essential that there be somebody to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is the first consideration when one thinks of the mountain of documentation emanating from Europe.

Chairman

I think Deputy McDonald's point is that, in the agricultural sphere, we would be better to get a general type of person and then perhaps be able to call on the Departments for experts in different fields.

Deputy McDonald

That is terribly important.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

He could be in contact with the experts.

Deputy Staunton

We are still discussing the draft report within that context. I have read the draft report. It certainly seems reasonable and we should discuss it. But my view is that it would be completely unwise to adopt this report for one or two reasons. Certainly, there was frustration in the committee. That is a rather long story, and the draft report smacks of this frustration, which is reasonable. The draft report speaks, in the first paragraph, of the Committee's:

. . . inability to procure an adequate complement of staff and expert assistance from Public Departments, it is unable to comply with its terms of reference.

I would find it entirely undesirable that this committee should adopt this draft report at this stage in circumstances where we had a most satisfactory meeting with the Minister for Finance yesterday. It would not seem to be the appropriate time to do so.

I should like to refer very briefly to the meeting with the Minister. It seemed to me that he was most attentive; he spent about two hours discussing the various aspects of the work of the committee. He seemed to be a very good listener and listened to all of the reservations and suggestions of the members of the committee. I am very hopeful that he is appreciative of our problem. I am hopeful also that he will come back to us with certain decisions to which we will be receptive.

In so far as two major points are concerned, the question of access to the Civil Service and that of the number of staff required, my view is that I am very much more concerned about access to the administration, the Civil Service, than I am about the precise details of the number of staff we are going to have at the commencement of this committee's work. I think that is very important. I am very hopeful that within the committee's terms of reference we will be able to have access to the Civil Service, for example in subcommittee, regarding operations rather than policy and, again, I am hopeful that the Government will be receptive to this question.

We are discussing the question of staffing. On this issue my views tend to be somewhat conservative. We have a staff of two, with clerical assistance, at present. One of those has been with us for about two months only. The Minister has offered two more people of higher executive status so that, if you like, within a couple of months, we are going to have more than we had two months ago. On the face of it, I do not think we have the capacity to quantify the precise number of staff we need. It seems to me we are developing a committee system, and this is referred to in the draft report, and the Department of the Public Service are investigating this entire question on behalf of the Government. For that reason my view is that we should do as one would in business or in any other type of activity so far as staffing is concerned and that is, start off with a certain number of people and get on with the job.

I want to refer very briefly to the meeting mentioned here regarding the Minister's attitude. The Minister's attitude was simply this: why not start with the staff we have been offered? Why not set up our schedule of meetings, first, in regard to the screening of the various directives and other data coming from the Community and, secondly, in regard to the setting up of the sub-committees to discuss certain points in detail? As he said, it is not necessarily a question of waiting a very long time until there are more staff. If we can begin to quantify our problem, if a problem exists, he has indicated he will be receptive to our views at this stage. It is important to put that into context. There may be problems on both sides. But my view, as far as staffing is concerned, is that we should simply get on with the job and start the operation. Then, at a later stage, let us quantify the position and put it to the Government at that stage.

The last point I want to make is merely to reiterate what I said in the beginning in relation to the draft report. I think it would be extremely unwise for this committee to adopt this report at this stage because of the sensitivity of the negotiations at present, in the light of yesterday's discussions. I should like to thank you, as Chairman, for the fair manner in which you conducted the affairs of this committee yesterday.

Deputy G. Fitzgerald

I should like to say how disappointing it is, when we have been in existence for practically a year, that even after that year we are discussing a staffing problem which I am sure we all consider to be a very important one indeed. A year ago when this committee was set up we were full of enthusiasm and interest and I fully accept the point made by Deputy Desmond that this was a watch-dog committee basically. I still think we can fulfil very many more useful functions. First of all, I am sure that the European Parliamentarians would agree that, by being a watch-dog committee and by discussing regulations which affect our economy, we could provide them with the necessary material for their contributions to and their actions at the European Parliament. In addition, by being well reported within the Dáil here and in our papers, the committee would provide a cheap line of communication for our people; an informal way of informing the public of the effect various regulations being made in Europe will have on our lives. For that reason, I do not think the extra cost of staff would be all that important because I think this committee has a very important function to fulfil. It would be a pity that the effort that the committee are prepared to put into their work should be spoiled. The frustration to which Deputy Staunton referred has been caused by the staffing problem we have had from the beginning, the fight, more or less, that you have had, particularly as Chairman of the committee and the members appointed to support you, in getting extra staff.

This has been disappointing. Subsequent to the visit to Europe there was new enthusiasm. We have discussed our needs as a Committee and were unanimous as regards those needs. We were satisfied we wanted four officers, two to each sub-committee. A draft regulation took the time of many meetings and but for the willingness of three Members of the Committee to use their own time and to provide their own legal expertise the work would never have been done without the proper assistance that should have been available to this Committee. We must demand that if we are serious about this Committee functioning properly we must have staff to back up the work and minimise the time we have to spend here. We are all prepared to spend that time here provided the necessary sifting and circulation of documentation is broken down for us and that we will not be lost under this mountain of paper. The Minister was prepared to listen to our needs. I hope he has an awareness of them now. I was disappointed that he was not prepared to give us the staff we felt we needed for the Committee.

Deputy Nolan

As one of the people on this Committee—a Deputy, a member of the European Parliament and a member of a county council—I want to say very clearly that it is not possible for Members of this Committee, irrespective of whether they have a dual mandate or not, to go through the documentation we receive from Europe. We need staff who will go through this documentation and say "This is important to a particular sub-committee". The documentation should be examined and sent to the various people. This Committee does not deal with policy. If any member or person from the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Finance came before this Committee to have discussions with us they could tell us about matters of policy. We only deal with theory. It is important that officials from the Departments should be able to come before us. This was borne out a few months ago in connection with the harmonisation of taxation. An official from the Revenue Commissioners attended. There was much documentation here and he went through it in detail and in ten minutes that official gave us information which briefed us properly. It would have taken us hours to go through the documentation. For some unknown reason when the Irish people decided by a large majority to go into Europe some people still said we would be better off out. They never asked where the £60 million would come from. There were elections recently in Britain. For the first time European politics were brought into that election. One party said "We will get out of Europe" and the other party said "We will stay in". I am satisfied to see that the British will stay in. I am glad to see the British stay.

If this Committee is going to work properly we need staff. I was very satisfied with the Minister's attitude yesterday. He was sympathetic to the views put forward. If we do not get the staff we must pack up. We would be better off writing letters to our constituents unless we get the staff.

Senator Lenihan

We are an all-party Committee concerned with European legislation. We should try to preserve that approach here. I was strong in my criticism of the attitude of the Administration towards the committee system generally. We are working as an all-party Committee and we should proceed on the basis of "sufficient for the day". We should stop short of having a full-dress debate in both the Dáil and the Seanad. I suggest that we should ask the Chairman to pursue the point of view of this Committee with the Minister and the Ceann Comhairle with a view to strengthening the staff situation. We will leave it in the hands of the Chairman.

Deputy B. Desmond

I would second that. It is a sensible process.

Deputy M. E. Dockrell

I have been listening closely to the views put forward this morning. A number of things have clearly emerged. With the vast amount of documentation this Committee can in no way get through even a part of it. We all may have our particular spheres of interest. Some people may know much about agriculture and there are others who are lawyers, but one would never get wrapped up in one person a knowledge of all these different branches any more than one will get them among the Members of this Committee who serve in the European Parliament. They know they cannot be experts in everything that comes before them. It emerges that we must be clearly guided by officials. We could not exist as Members of Dáil Eireann if we were to give the time that was necessary to the documentation that comes to us in connection with the work of this Committee. Somebody must filter it for us. Some persons must do the same for our Members in the European Parliament. I am quite clear in my mind that they are very inadequately briefed. On many occasions they have been hardly briefed at all. We must be in a position to handle this.

The Minister has signified his sympathy with us and his intention to meet this demand. While a debate in both Houses might be interesting I do not think it could add much to anybody's knowledge of the situation. The other Members of both Houses who are not on this Committee or who are not members of the European Parliament simply do not understand the problem as we do. We are in touch with it. Deputy Staunton made a real contribution when he referred to the quantity. We do not know exactly yet the quantity of work that would be necessary for these new officials to do. I think I am correct in stating that. Coupled with the intention of the Minister to review sympathetically our problems—and he has already offered us a large increase in staff—I think our wisest plan would be to continue to accept that, go on with it and keep a very close eye on how the extra staff are dealing with the quantitative aspect. Then we will be talking from experience when we press the Minister, if necessary, for more staff.

It is the feeling of the Committee that the Chairman has acted in a fair and assiduous manner. He has given an enormous amount of his time to this Committee. We are very fortunate in having a Chairman who has taken that interest and has the background knowledge to do so. It would be a wise move to leave this in the hands of the Chairman at the moment rather than press for a debate in the House, which many of us feel could not add much to our knowledge or the Government's knowledge of this situation. This is a very old concept. We must not antagonise any of the forces with whom we have to deal, namely, the Civil Service, the Government and so forth. I suggest that the Chairman speak to the Minister when necessary.

Senator Robinson

Before it emerges that we have reached some sort of consensus to defer action once again, I should like to say that I hold strongly to what may now be a minority view. I hope that this discussion will result in the question of whether we send the draft report to both Houses at least being put to the vote. I should like to see a vote on that issue.

I am not of the view that the meeting yesterday with the Minister was satisfactory, and that it resulted in something about which we can be pleased as was said by some of the Members of this Committee. I appreciate that the Minister came here for some hours and listened to what we had to say. But he did not advance one inch in real terms from the position which, in private session on 11th July, this Committee unanimously found to be unacceptable.

We should go back and retrace all the steps. This is a new Committee. We have a new and important function. As Senator Ryan said, this Committee is a forerunner for the possible development of other Committees of this nature. Because it is new, there are problems in assessing its requirements and how it can have the adequate back-up service to have proper functioning sub-committees. There have been differences of views about this. In the circumstances it was a very constructive step to have a number of senior officials of the new Department of the Public Service assessing us. We were assessed, our requirements and the jobs we were doing were examined over a number of weeks. Members of the Committee were interviewed collectively, in private session, and separately. I was very impressed by the way in which the expert team came and examined our work-load and our various responsibilities: responsibilities to examine Irish domestic regulations to see if we would recommend their annulment; to provide back-up services for members of the European Parliament; to discharge the important work in sub-committees of looking at draft European proposals on important economic and social issues, et cetera.

The senior official of that group, a Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Public Service, made a report and discussed its conclusions. As former Ministers must know, civil servants are not wont to be generous. If they make a report about staffing, their recommendation is usually for the minimum and not a generous surplus. We were all impressed with Dr. Whelan's conclusions, with his cutting down of our assessment of what we wanted and his recommendation for four officials at a more senior level than higher executive officer. We then had a decision by the Minister to cut the recommendation by half and have the staff at a lower level.

What amazes me is the way this Committee is prepared to compromise all along the line and is now prepared to defer the matter and limp on, because in my view we will limp on. We have been in existence for one year and we have had inadequate staffing all this time. Now we are prepared to accept an unsatisfactory compromise. Perhaps two of our sub-committees will work fairly well with two higher executive officers attached full-time to them. But what about the other two committees and the back-up services for members of the European Parliament?

I doubt if this can be fulfilled. If the majority view which appears to be emerging prevails, the Committee ought to be honest and cut down on its work-load. We should abolish or suspend two of our sub-committees, and say that for the moment we will not continue with this particular work because we do not have the staff. We should use our allotted resources to the maximum and have two good sub-committees working. In doing that we will being it home to the Minister that he has handicapped us to that extent and that only half our sub-committees will be able to work. We ought not to give the impression that in some way yesterday's meeting with the Minister was a positive advance on the private session of 11th July, because it was not. There was no clear indication as to a Cabinet decision about co-operation with the various Departments, nor was there any clear decision about increasing the actual allotment of——

Deputy Esmonde

On a point of order. At the private session yesterday with the Minister and a private session with Dr. Whelan, there were things said and discussed. I have not put on them the same interpretation as Senator Robinson. There is a fundamental rule that matters discussed and dealt with in private session are not referred to. So far as I am concerned, having been at the two meetings other than the 11th July, I do not agree with the interpretation placed on what was said or supposed to have been concluded at those meetings. I would be very disappointed if we were to use the frank discussions, where we had come to no firm decision in public sessions. Otherwise we are completely defeating the purpose of private sessions.

Senator Robinson

I maintain that I am not in any way in breach of any concept of what was disclosed confidentially at private sessions. I have been rather careful not to encroach into that area. The Minister's decision on staff allotment is dealt with in correspondence to the Committee.

Deputy Esmonde

The same consideration concerned Dr. Whelan. I think it is very unfair to people who come in here to assist us.

Senator Robinson

The position that I have been putting forward is that we are not either quoting the Minister or going into detail on what was said yesterday. The conclusion was that no further staff are to be awarded to us other than what was specified in the letter prior to the meeting of 11th July, 1974, which the Committee decided unanimously was quite unsatisfactory. Nor was there a positive commitment to have a Cabinet decision ensuring that officials from Departments would come to us, in sub-committee session, to assist us on technical and factual information. I think those are the two key issues on which this Committee has been expressing grave concern and dissatisfaction over the past year. I do not think I am in breach of anybody's confidence. I do not want to be unfair in that respect. But the situation is that the Minister listened with attention and great interest but he did not give a commitment which would persuade me that we ought change our minds about adopting this draft report, nor indicate that he would take any constructive steps to resolve the problems this Committee feels it is facing.

Deputy Kavanagh

I have listened to Members relating their experience of what happened yesterday and on previous occasions. Like other members of the European Parliament, I feel we are in the position that we attend here so inadequately and so briefly that we cannot really discuss staffing arrangements and whether or not they are adequate. I shall not go into any detail on that aspect of it. I can only gather from the various sources that there have been moves made to improve the situation. There seems to be general consensus that, while the staffing facilities are not adequate, at least it is an advancing position and we will first have to ascertain whether or not the additional staff will meet the essential needs of the Committee. I think this should be tried first before we advance this report to the Dáil and commit a faux pas there about inadequate staff when, indeed, most Members of the Committee seem satisfied that there is a genuine attempt being made by the Minister to meet the needs of the Committee.

One aspect of this report to which I should like to refer is in regard to the Irish delegates to the European Parliament and, in this respect, I want to give my own experience of briefing. First of all, I should say all of us are members of various political groupings within the European Parliament. Therefore, we endeavour, first of all, to influence those groupings on the Irish position in the various discussions that take place. The real problem is that we go out there perhaps without seeing agendas for the particular Committee meetings, be they group meetings or other committees of which we are members. There is the need for briefing more in direct line with Departments—or experts in Departments—than perhaps with the Committee here. This is really what members of the European Parliament need. In this respect, whenever I have had occasion to approach any Department I have received the utmost co-operation, and briefings have been made available to me. Indeed, only last week, a very long telex message was sent to me by the Department of Labour in regard to an important statement on the European Joint Stock Company issue. The decision of that Department was made known to me at very short notice and I was able to convey that decision to my group committee meeting. This has been the position too, on various aspects of agriculture which, on most occasions, only become known to us when we arrive at the committee meeting. I am not saying it is entirely satisfactory but I do say that my experience has been that where I have had to approach a Department, I have received the facilities I needed. Also, I have had occasion to approach the Confederation of Irish Industries and the trade union movement for their positions in regard to various aspects of problems discussed in the European Parliament. These positions have been made known to me in a comprehensive way and, in turn, those organisations were grateful because they realised the usefulness of informing Members of the European Parliament of their points of view on matters under discussion. Therefore, I could not altogether agree with that aspect of the report. I do not think that we, as members of the European Parliament, should rely on this Committee for our briefings. Because we represent political groups, I think primarily we must represent those groups and try to put forward the standpoints of our own parties to the groups there. Obviously the Irish position is fundamental to us in these groups. Therefore, we endeavour to advance that aspect. I do not really believe it is this Committee's job to brief European Parliamentarians and I would disagree with the comments made in that respect in the report.

Senator Lenihan

I would agree with Deputy Kavanagh there; briefing European Parliamentarians is a totally separate matter.

Senator E. Ryan

Could I comment on this question of whether or not we should report to both Houses? There is no doubt at all, that if no further co-operation than up to now is to be given to us, we must report to both Houses on the lines of the draft report. But certain offers have been made to us. Some members of the Committee at least have reason to believe—from the attitude of the Minister yesterday—that the position will improve in the future. From the practical point of view, even were we to report on the lines of the draft report to the Houses, time would not be given for a debate on it between now and the time the Houses rise. Consequently, it would not be debated until some time in October. By that time it will be possible for us to ascertain whether we are going to get the further co-operation from the Minister and the Government Departments which has been promised us, or which we have reason to believe will be forthcoming. Consequently, I think nothing would be gained by making a report now because a debate would not be held on it and we can review the position in October next. We can then see whether, in the intervening months, the further co-operation we need is or is not forthcoming. If it is not forthcoming by then, it will be quite clear that we should have no reasonable expectation of it coming after that time. We can then consider sending a report to both Houses. But, as nothing can be gained in the meantime, I think we could defer sending this report until October and see what will have happened by then.

Chairman

I think the general view is that the time is not opportune to submit a report to both Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that is the view of the Committee and I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to say one or two things. First of all, I do not know if it has been sufficiently or adequately expressed but, in case it has not been, I want to say again that we deeply appreciate the Minister having come before us yesterday. I want to remind the members of the Committee that it was the Minister's own suggestion that he come. I think that is important because perhaps we were remiss ourselves in not thinking of inviting him. But anyway it was his suggestion that, if he were invited, he would come. His coming in itself was an important step from our point of view. At that level at least, I think I express the feelings of all the Committee when I say that we are very grateful to the Minister for having come before us, listened to us and discussed the matter so frankly with us. Secondly, I think the view of the Committee is that we should not at this stage submit this report to both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be included in our report of today's meeting, as a draft for anybody who wishes to read it and, in any event, as Senator Ryan pointed out, the practicalities are that it could not be discussed for some time.

Senator Robinson

I would like to be regarded as dissenting. I would like to see the report adopted and sent to both Houses for debate.

Chairman

I appreciate the point of view expressed lucidly and clearly by Senator Robinson. Our main requirement is for four staff of a high level from the public service—one to service each sub-committee. It would be my intention to press that view on the Minister for the Public Service. It is also my view that we should have available to us on request officials of Government Departments who would brief us. I will press both these aspects. We will still press for a full complement of four staff—one for each sub-committee—and for the attendance of officials from Public Departments. I propose to leave it at that and go on to take the next item with Senator Robinson dissenting.

There are other matters on the agenda which are of some importance. One in particular I wish to call attention to. We intend to have a meeting next Wednesday. It is a sub-committee meeting of the General Policy Sub-Committee. It will be on Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. On the agenda for that meeting will be the energy policy of the Communities. The Secretariat have circulated documentation to you. We will have that document for discussion next Wednesday. It is a very important subject which merits our attention. This will be a private session and we will have expert assistance available to brief us.

Senator Lenihan

I hope we will have senior officials from our own administration present.

Chairman

We want to discuss also another very important document which has been in existence for some considerable time now. It is a draft European Company statute. I do not think it is moving towards finality at the moment.

Senator E. Ryan

This was debated for a few days in the European Parliament.

Deputy Esmonde

I understand it was referred back with certain recommendations.

Senator Lenihan

It is not yet final.

Deputy Kavanagh

The statute has not got through the Parliament.

Chairman

The time is opportune for us to look at it. I intend calling the Economic and Social Sub-Committee together to discuss it. I ask as many Members of the European Parliament as can to attend next week's meeting.

Deputy McDonald

A number of facts have aroused much attention. It was hotly debated and voted on at the last session.

Chairman

Perhaps the delegates would decide which one or two of them would be certain to attend this Sub-Committee meeting to give us the benefit of their knowledge based on the discussion in the European Parliament.

Deputy Nolan

It is a pity that we as a Committee could not discusss the proposals prior to their discussion at the European Parliament. At one stage we met an official from the Revenue Commissioners who in ten minutes gave us as much information as one could get from spending two hours in the Library. Before a debate in the European Parliament we should have a discussion here in the Committee.

Deputy Esmonde

I am pleased that Deputy Nolan has raised that matter. This Committee, at the invitation of the Commission, went to Brussels and Luxembourg. The chairman, Deputy Chairman, a member of the staff and myself had some very interesting discussions with the Secretariat attached to the Commission. The discussions were informal but by one of these accidents which occur from time to time we gleaned information that was not known to another part of the organisation in the European Parliament that deals with these matters. We discovered that there is a new procedure by way of a document giving assistance. When a recommendation comes out from the Commission there is now a document which sets out a possible time schedule of how long a particular measure will take.

This policy has only just been decided on by the Commission in order to minimise our work. We were one of the few who discovered this. It was not known publicly around the corridors of the European Parliament. It is a recent decision taken by the Commission and should be of considerable help. We are trying to arrange that we might be able to get a copy of that document as quickly as possible to this country. It would give us some warning of what the countdown was on any particular measure. This will solve many problems.

I would like to record our grateful thanks to the Commission and the staff for the tremendous assistance they gave us. They were forthcoming to us when we were over there and gave us information. They were understanding of our problems as a Committee dealing with European affairs. They were more than anxious to assist us. We made useful personal contacts at Commission level which should redound to the assistance of this Committee. A person is being made available to us from this Committee to discuss the energy strategy policy. Possibly this would have not occurred but for our little trip to Brussels a few weeks ago.

I want to deal with one matter raised by Senator Lenihan. It is a difficult one. When we were discussing matters of staff and our general standing as a Committee and our functions, he referred to the analogy with the European set-up and how officials from the Commission and Parliament took part in policy discussions. I take that view from my knowledge of the European structure. I am only a home-based "Paddy" who must refer to his more learned members attached to the European Parliament. My own view is that an official of the Commission performs a somewhat different function to that performed by a member of our Civil Service. They have certain fundamental rights and duties written into the Treaty of Rome. They are virtually the arbitrators and watchdogs of the Treaty. They have the superficial power of control. Therefore, the analogy is not quite right.

When we were in Brussels it was explained that there was a shift of emphasis in the way that directives, documents and the general business of the European Parliament and the EEC are looked upon. Previously the emphasis was on economics, then politics and then the legal framework. We were informed by the persons on the legal staff that the emphasis had gone to politics, then economics and then law. The change in order was largely due to the German attitude to European affairs. We were told some rather disquieting matters which are not necessary for us to discuss here.

That brings up the question of policy. Our duty is to both Houses of the Oireachtas. We will have to be prepared to stand up and be counted in the national interest when a matter of policy is under consideration. We cannot be looked at as political plumbers examining documents and directives. We should keep in the back of our minds that we have a duty to inform both Houses when any particular measure comes up to us and upon which we feel there should be a report.

We obtained tremendous assistance from our Chairman when he led our delegation to Europe. With the help of the staff he put us in touch with many important, interesting and helpful people. As a result we have all learned a lot. But let us stop talking about staff and get on with what we have. Deputy Desmond made the suggestion that our two higher executive officers should be assigned to various sub-committees. We have a European mountain in paper to deal with here. The entire staff, and not a limited staff, will have to deal with all the problems as they arise and get them into us so that we can deal with them.

Senator Robinson

I understand we are discussing our future work-load. We have mentioned energy policy as being on the list. I understood that we were also to tackle the European Social Action Programme?

Chairman

I was about to mention that. We selected, at random, more or less because of their relative importance, energy policy, the Statute of the European Company and the Social Action Programme.

Senator Lenihan

Three key centres.

Chairman

We will begin with energy policy next Wednesday and immediately afterwards try to process the others through the sub-committees.

Deputy McDonald

Chairman, I should like to refer to your visit to Europe. I did not know of your intended visit by virtue of not being able to attend all the meetings here. Still I was disturbed because I did not have prior notice of your coming. Mr. Joe Fahy rang me the Thursday before you arrived and asked me to arrange a function. I could not find out even how many of my colleagues were coming until two hours after they had landed in Luxembourg. I found that most annoying. I found it very embarrassing when the president of my group asked the names of our visitors and I could not tell him. It might not have been so bad if I could have said that the secretariat here was at fault but our own information centre in Europe did not have the information either. I realise that it was a mistake but I hope the next time my colleagues visit Europe I will be given full details beforehand so that I can arrange proper entertainment.

I have been pressing the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance to give similar entertainment allowances to the delegation to the European Parliament as the Minister did to the Members of the Council of Europe.

The visit of this committee to the European Parliament was one of the worst organised by parliamentarians of the various Member States. I very much regret this. I hope a further visit will be organised for the other members of this Joint Committee and other parliamentarians at the earliest possible opportunity. It is important that they should appreciate our work, take a closer look at European affairs and realise the difficulties experienced by Members working the dual mandate. I repeat, I hope when the next delegation is coming I will be given adequate prior notice.

Deputy Nolan

I am amazed by what Deputy McDonald has just said. This was not a matter for this Committee. I knew they were coming out.

Chairman

This is an internal matter and perhaps we might discuss it more fully at a sub-committee meeting. Now that we have made our first visit to the Commission and to the Parliament; now that we know what to look for on the next occasion—it is our firm intention to organise another visit later on this year, perhaps in October or November—we shall endeavour to make that visit as effective as possible.

In regard to the European Parliament, we did receive wonderful assistance, co-operation and hospitality from Mr. McGowan Smith and from a former member of the Press Gallery here, Mr. Joe Fahy. We received excellent co-operation from them and, indeed, we are most grateful, as has been recorded in our report.

The committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m.